Tory
Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1
Sun Mar 5, 2017 21:20
112.198.68.249

Hi Kim

The cycle covers 25 years. The lunation in II Akhet is on a different day in each of these years. So the "if" is not really applicable, unless you are in year 1 of the cycle. All the other years are covered too. And they include 30 day sequences, but not 29 day sequences. So the stylised 29.5 day average month is actually extended to a "real" 29.53 average month.

Unfortunately that does not change the fact that it cannot be used to predict real lunations throughout the cycle, nor astronomical full moon 22 days in advance, to bring us back to subject. The oath had to be taken, according to the parties, before the god Khonsu during a real full moon date, not a schematic or calendaric LD 15 that may or may not agree with nature.

Because the Egyptians designated service periods in advance. In the unlikely event of 4 30-day lunations in a row (once every 500 years? just my little joke) I think the day-priests would go on strike.

Same misunderstanding pervades Qumranic studies on the moon. You can draw up a schematic list of projected lunar dates, but if the schema covers more than 3-6 years and things have to take place consistently on the day of a real lunar phase, then whenever a projected schematic date falls short or overshoots the real phase, nothing happens on that day except perhaps an ocular inspection of the sky. If a priestly rotation or shift change is really tied to a real lunation then it happens on the day of the real lunation and not a day sooner or a day later, regardless of the schematized list.

But then Shepenwepet II continues in post for another 8 years after this.

No, I'm saying she remains as long as Tanutamon is king of Egypt. So if she is really gone in year 25 of Psamtik I then this is likely to be the year Tanutamon died in Egypt. However, I don't believe year 25 is the year Nitocris became GW. It is the first year we know of that she is attested as GW. So I would put the death of Tanutamon at Memphis, and the end of Shepenwepet and Amonardis II just before the Apis death in year 20.

Tanutamun would compel it, and would have his own officials at the ceremony, of which there is equally no evidence

I disagree with yet another rule invention. He would not compel his vassal Psamtik I to make sure he gets some sort of honorable mention in his inscriptions. That makes no sense. Official representation at the ceremony? Shepenwepet II and Amonardis II are the most important Theban officials of Tanutamun at the scene. Hello? :-)

this is certianly Taharqa, who has the same Horus name on the Kawa stelae.

It is not certainly Taharqa, as if two kings cannot have the same Horus name. Egyptology denies the Assyrian data that Rudamon II (Urdamane) exists. They morph him into Tanutamun and then wrongly make Tanutamun the Kushite king Assurbanipal defeated. It is Rudamon II who is named and deceased.

The wife of Tanutamun is Piye-irty, who is titled "king's sister, king's wife, mistress of Egypt".

That's what I meant to say, sorry. Qalhata was not his mother in any case.

To specify someone as both "sister" and "born from the same womb" seems to me to cover both parents.

But it doesn't. Not today and no reason to assume it did when first penned. "African Americans" (misnomer) tend to view siblings as full only if they share the same mother, despite the reality.

Perhaps you will sometime elaborate on why you think Morkot is being racist, rather than simply appealing to an African-American audience, with the title "Black Pharaohs"?

It is precisely because the racist mutherfuker was trying to sell his book, implying that to be a pharaoh with black skin was somehow unique to the period of the 25th dynasty. The truth is there were far more native Egyptian pharaoh's with very dark skin who were not Nubians at all. There is no color line at the fourth fucking cataract. I'm talking to him not you.

Potential heirs are only those in the male line. Josephus' ancestor was not in this category.

No. At this period of our history, the descendants of Yah'oh-natan (Jonathan) the high priest, whether male or female, have a claim to the throne. Josephus' ancestors survived Herod not because Herod was told by Rome he could not touch them. That's simply not factual.

The Wenamun Report says someone is in charge at Tanis with this name but is not a king. I seem to recall you were once quite happy to separate the two individuals Smendes the governor of Tanis and Smendes the first Manethonic king of D21.

I strongly disagree here. If you want to say Smendes is not specifically called king, he is not called governor either. I have and will continue to say Wenamun considered him pharaoh and so did the king of Byblos. I reject the effort on the part of past and current scholar to demand the "novel" satisfy another rule that does not really exist. Wenamun only had two human superiors, Herihor and Smendes and Smendes was superior to Herihor but not to the god Amun. There is no one higher than Smendes in Egypt at this time except the god Amun.

If Iuwelot is hwn (youth) before 936 (your death date for ur-Osorkon) he must be older than this.

Why? Born ca. 944, he's a youth of 9 when his father died.

NLTs naming the 1PA do not AFAIK occur before "Dynasty 22".

There are no NLT's on the quay before "Dynasty 22." It starts with whoever the Shoshenq was that founded the dynasty at Bubastis. The rule that he should come from Bubastis before his accession is another rule I simply do not see any evidence for.

Regards Tory

  • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1Kim Sargerson, Sun Mar 5 16:14
    Hi Tory ""If" you start the missing entry of the first month of the cycle with psdntwy on I-3kt 1 in the first year of the cycle..." The cycle covers 25 years. The lunation in II Akhet is on a... more
    • Re: Libyans and Kushites part 1 — Tory, Sun Mar 5 21:20
Click here to receive daily updates